Is GOP Straying from Conservative Base?

Citizen Link ^ | 8-6-2007

[monomaniac]

As the Republican National Committee (RNC) wrapped up its four-day annual summer meeting in Minneapolis over the weekend, some leaders were left wondering if the party is straying from its conservative stance on social and religious issues.

"Evangelical and pro-life Catholics are a critical part of the GOP's electoral coalition," James Bopp Jr., an Indiana member of the RNC, told The Washington Times. "The GOP cannot win in 2008 without their enthusiastic support. It remains to be seen whether the GOP is moving away from them. Whether the GOP is doing so will be determined by who is nominated for president."

Most RNC members either swore they would not let the national party distance itself from religious and social conservatives stands or saw no indications of that happening.

"Not as long as I'm in this party," longtime Oklahoma RNC member Bunny Chambers told the newspaper.

Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said the party is not drifting from its social conservatism.

"The religious Right and social conservatives are still a very big part of the party and will be for a long time to come," Anuzis said. "The Democrat policies clearly are antithetical to what religious and social conservatives believe in. The Left that controls the Democratic Party is very much pro-choice on abortion and anti-traditional marriage."

[RetiredArmy]

Pure B.S. The RINO’s are going more liberal everyday to pander to the illegals and the sit on their asses at home. They are spending like a drunken sailor on his first liberty in the PI’s. Bush is the leader of the spenders. He has outspent the liberals and outspent Klinton. NOT COUNTING THE WAR EFFORT. That is just on socialist crap. There is no party of conservatives anymore. We need to create our own. THE Conservative Party. No liberals or big spenders or big government or pro-abortion or anti-military need apply. We don’t want your sorry worthless asses.

[colorado tanker]

Where were the “Evangelical and pro-life Catholics” when Bill Clinton won - twice?

B.J. never got over 50% of the vote. See Perot, Ross, Spoiler.

[x]

No, A RINO is someone that votes for a liberal Republican and pretends he or she is advancing the conservative cause.

In case you missed it, it was RINO Republicans spending money and expanding government from 2000 to 2006. It has been RINO Republicans teaming with Democrats to push through amnesty bills for illegals. RINOS joined Democrats in trying to block strict Constitutionalist jurists to the courts.

The ONLY way conservativism is to progress is for conservatives to vote for conservatives.

Who are all these liberal Republicans? If there are any, aren't they from states where conservatives could never get elected, like Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut?

And who are the Congressmen who turned their back on conservatism? They aren't those liberals or moderates -- they were never on board to begin with. Aren't they people who were more or less elected as conservatives?

Today, you say the McCains and Grahams and Lotts and Stevenses (I guess that's who you mean) are RINOs. I'd say they're conservatives who went to Washington and went native there.

[OriginalIntent]

The Democrat policies clearly are antithetical to what religious and social conservatives believe in.

The animosity of liberals toward our great conservative religious and social values is the very basis of the modern Democrat party.

This same hatred is the basis for their leftist secular humanistic view of God and man which explains very clearly why they are so opposed to the first four hundred years of our beloved American civilization. (our history overflows with gratitude for our country's foundational conservative Judeo/Christian worldview)

American history and historic Constitutional interpretation looks favorably and thankfully upon religious conservatives while it wars against liberals and those who oppose conservative moral values.

Are some of you still under the liberal spell that led you to believe liberals dedicated themselves toward revising American history and systematically attacking our founding heroes without extreme prejudice?....or without our foundational moral destruction in mind?)

[EternalVigilance]

"Evangelical and pro-life Catholics are a critical part of the GOP's electoral coalition," James Bopp Jr., an Indiana member of the RNC, told The Washington Times. "The GOP cannot win in 2008 without their enthusiastic support. It remains to be seen whether the GOP is moving away from them. Whether the GOP is doing so will be determined by who is nominated for president."

Hmmm...would this be the same James Bopp, Jr. who is leading pro-life folks astray into the Mitt Romney camp?

Mitt Romney's strident defense of his pro-abort record during his last run for public office

[ksen]

Where were the “Evangelical and pro-life Catholics” when Bill Clinton won - twice? Apparently either too unconcerned or too impotent to matter in the Clinton election.

Way to utterly neglect the two sadsacks nominated to run against Sink.

[Ol' Sparky]

If the liberals gain a lot of power and screw things up even worse than the RINOs have We know that isn't true so long as Republicans have either the White House or 40 votes in the Senate.

In fact, as a whole, things have been better this year -- with divided government -- than with Republicans in charge and expanding government, spending money and pushing for amnesty for illegals.

Fear of liberals isn't a good reason to elect RINOs.

[Politicalmom]

Please show me where Jesus told his followers to take food by force from some people to redistribute it to others.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Duh.

[angkor]

If you support freedom and liberty, a right to life is a pretty easy concept to grasp. ... Clearly, abortion on demand and partial birth abortion aren't found in any of America's founding documents. Killing the unborn is not a fundamental right. The right to life, is a fundamental right.

OK, I buy that.

Now, why does the "social conservative" require the modifier "social" in front of "conservative".

As you have noted, I do have disdain toward what I *think* that modifier implies, but I'm now asking you to tell me what you think.

Why "social conservative"? Why not simply "conservative"? What's the difference?

[OKIEDOC]

Politicalmom wrote:
Please show me where Jesus told his followers to take food by force from some people to redistribute it to others.

Comment:

The tone of your comment says to me that maybe in your eyes that you judge me not worthy to be called a Conservative.

Where did I say that Jesus said take by force?

However, Jesus did say a number of things about money and feeding the hungry.

12”Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and Greater Works than These will he do...John 14

7 “Blessed are the Merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.Matthew 5

35 “For I was hungry and you gave me food,I was thirsty and you gave me drink,I was a Stranger and you Welcomed me,
36 “I was naked and you clothed me,I was sick and you visited me,I was in prison and you came to me.’40 “Truly, I say to you,as you did it to one of the least of these,
my brethren,you did it to me...Matthew 25

The position of Jesus and money in regards to taxes and giving to God is also made clear through Jesus’ teaching. When the Pharisees tried to tempt Jesus to speak out against Rome, Jesus gave them a principle that holds true today when he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21, NIV).

In other words, be subject to the powers over you (Romans 13:1-7) and pay taxes or tribute, as it is required. At another time, God supplied the money for Jesus’ tribute or tax through the mouth of a fish (Matthew 17:24-27).

Thank God we have righteous compassionate individuals who care so much for their fellow citizens.

I would like to believe that even the staunches hardened conservative Republicans have some of Jesus compassion.

I must admit Politicalmom that this person who comments to you is at times poor in faith and falls far short of the teachings of our Lord.

I also have this deep excited feeling that the United States including me is about to undergo a thunderous reawakening to Christianity.

[untrained skeptic]

Fear of liberals isn't a good reason to elect RINOs.

Defeat the RINOs in the primary. If the RINO wins the primary, you then are left with the choice of the lesser of two evils in that election, and you can't change that until the next primary.

We know that isn't true so long as Republicans have either the White House or 40 votes in the Senate.

That is true as long as there are 40 Republicans that are conservative on that particular topic. There are a lot of RINOs in the Senate and few true conservatives, so while they may block some extremely bad and unpopular legislation, don't expect government to be growing slower with the Democrats in the majority. We are going to be hearing a lot about compromise legislation that is needed to "move things forward and break the impasse".

In fact, as a whole, things have been better this year -- with divided government -- than with Republicans in charge and expanding government, spending money and pushing for amnesty for illegals.

How have things been better? The Senate passed a amnesty bill last year, but it had no hope of passing the house, and was withdrawn. This year enough Republicans banded together to make a symbolic effort to stop it from passing in the Senate rather than making a symbolic vote to pass a bill that was DOA in the House like the last one.

The democrats control Congress' agenda. They control what bills come up for votes when. There is now no hope of getting conservative judges confirmed. With a Republican majority they could have forced through more than they did if they would have had good leadership, but even in their failure they did get some confirmed. Now they won't get any.

Republicans are barely fending off extremely bad labor laws. Congress is working at pushing a Global Warming agenda through piecemeal. Please explain to me in what ways you think things are actually better now.

[Politicalmom]

Charity is done voluntarily.

The government has NO business taking money that I could use for MY children, or that I could support an agency that feeds and evangelizes people, and using it for anything but what the Constitution outlines.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there provision for sending 30 billion to Africa “supposedly” for AIDS. Nowhere is there provision for sending “foreign aid” (bribes) to countries whose people want nothing more than to kill us.

As for welfare here, the Bible clearly states that he who won’t work, doesn’t eat.

Maybe you missed yesterday’s story about the woman who has five children and is totally supported on tax money. Why do I have to support MY children, but others are given a pass?
I am a SAHM whose husband is supporting us on one income. I would love to have someone hand me thousands of dollars a month for doing what I already have to do.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>As you have noted, I do have disdain toward what I *think* that modifier implies, but I'm now asking you to tell me what you think.

I've already told you what defines social conservatism. For your information, the vast majority of FReepers are social conservatives. The same holds true for the GOP`s voter base. So the contempt you have towards social conservatives flies in the face of reality. You're at odds with the well established agenda of this political forum and the GOP in general. You can forget about throwing social conservatives overboard. Ain't gonna happen.

[angkor]

Unreal. We're done here, because you keep getting emotional without answering my simple question. But just for the record....

I've already told you what defines social conservatism.

No, you did not. You twice cited the Declaration and the Constitution. Neither contains the phrase "social conservative".

For your information, the vast majority of FReepers are social conservatives.

For your information, you're completely wrong.

The same holds true for the GOP`s voter base.

No, it does not. You're wrong, again.

So the contempt you have towards social conservatives flies in the face of reality. You're at odds with the well established agenda of this political forum and the GOP in general.

Your emotional overreaction to my comments is clouding your intellect.

My mild "disdain" is not "contempt". Those words mean different things, and it's revealing that you choose to use a word that I did not, in order to lie about the position I've clearly stated above.

And, no, I'm in no way "at odds" since (for the third or fourth time now) I'm in agreement with the positions you've repeatedly stated.

You can forget about throwing social conservatives overboard. Ain't gonna happen.

You need to sit back and ask yourself the following question: "Why am I being so obtuse and reluctant to answer Angkor's simple question, 'What is the essential difference between a self-avowed 'social conservative' and a self-avowed 'conservative', when they appear to believe the same things? Why do I call myself a 'social conservative'? Am I different that other 'conservatives'? How? And why am I so reluctant to answer that question and attack people who ask it?"

Don't waste our time answering anything else, or attacking me with assertions I didn't make, or attempting so ham-handedly to distort my position. If you can explain why you're a "social conservative" and not merely a "conservative", then have at it.

[angkor]

The way I see it, Arlen Specter has done more damage to the GOP than any democrat junior senator could have.

The way I see it, Arlen Specter is a Democrat and a nut.

[angkor]

I don't believe someone can be considered a conservative unless they embrace the entire ball of wax. ANY deviation makes them a liberal

OK. Then what the heck is the need for anyone to call himself a "social conservative", a "cultural conservative", a "values voter", a "fiscal conservative", a "Paleoconservative", a "libertarian conservative", or anything else at all other than simply "conservative" (my choice) if, as you say, there's only ONE TRUE conservative with ONE unified set of beliefs?

I'm asking how the "social conservative" would distinguish himself from me, the plain 'ol run-of-the-mill unmodified and unreconstructed "conservative"?

Have at it, I keep asking this simple question and all that comes back is cheap and juvenile innuendo and an immense resistance to answering the darned question.

I guess I'm a "liberal" for asking "social conservatives" what that "social" modifier is supposed to convey to the rest of us. It must be a real brain strainer.

[angkor]

Written like a liberal parrot who does not know the first thing about conservatism.

You are an immensely superficial person.

Do you have the capacity to read, comprehend, and write in anything other than cheap sound bites?

[Manic_Episode]

"OK. Then what the heck is the need for anyone to call himself a "social conservative", a "cultural conservative", a "values voter", a "fiscal conservative", a "Paleoconservative", a "libertarian conservative", or anything else at all other than simply "conservative" (my choice) if, as you say, there's only ONE TRUE conservative with ONE unified set of beliefs? I'm asking how the "social conservative" would distinguish himself from me, the plain 'ol run-of-the-mill unmodified and unreconstructed "conservative"? Have at it, I keep asking this simple question and all that comes back is cheap and juvenile innuendo and an immense resistance to answering the darned question. I guess I'm a "liberal" for asking "social conservatives" what that "social" modifier is supposed to convey to the rest of us. It must be a real brain strainer."

=======================================

A rose by any other name still smells like crap.

Have a nice day.

[angkor]

A rose by any other name still smells like crap.

Is that one of your "no deviations, period" conservative principles?

Or are you just referring to "social conservative" or one of the other modifiers?

In any case, thanks for participating in this episode of "Social Conservatism: A Philosophy Without An Idea."